tv [untitled] February 23, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PST
support of both measures, but as usual, i have my concerns. rather than having the previous speaker speaking on those two issues, i thought it was more legitimate to have mr. oliver speak on these two issues. unfortunately he is alone with the ethics commission and i would like to know why whistle- blowers' suddenly lose their jobs. second, one item that should be considered is a sign that residency statement by all candidates, especially by incumbents. let's put this way. that ethics commission has not given a written opinion as to a 2008 written complaint regarding eight residencies date controversy about a sitting supervisor. you tell me it takes that long to put that in motion?
you read between the lines and figure out what is really going on. second, there should be some sort of discussion about the mayor of writing a regular column for the examiner. in my opinion, that is too cozy a relationship and how can the examiner honestly criticized the mayor when he is on board as one of their regular columnist? the last thing i would like to question is when somebody has a large campaign debt and tries to go to functions to pay down the debt, and laid my book and in the books of many other people, that is simply influence peddling. call it whatever you want. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i'm not sure if two minutes is sufficient. i expected these items to be
called separately. first of all, i think these two ordnances both potentially violate the single subject rule because they mix the campaign finance programs with changes to the code with respect to the nomination. i believe that fairly strongly. i also think in terms of procedure, where the ethics commission takes a vote on a matter, they should communicate in writing to the board of supervisors with their vote is and not have that merely be reflected by a line in the city's attorneys digest of legislation. they should communicate formally to that and. -- to that end. i'm not concerned with the particulars, i tend to favor the soft cap at i would have eased slightly different numbers, but i think this goes a distance to fixing the thing and making it
work. i can live with all that. i want to focus on the municipal election code and the potential change any they want to follow- up on this, moving back the deadline date 58 days, almost two months to early june has the effect of commingling aspects of a june and november elections that do not exist. now the june election is done and put to bed, the best can't settle at least for with the november election. this moves the deadline so close as to require the department of elections to be verifying signature at the same time they are conducting the canvas. it is confusing to others and i think it is problematic and there are other ways to address these so-called zombie candidate issue and other ways to ensure the pool of candidates is to be done at that time when the public financing program starts. supervisor kim: can you talk
about other ways to address the zombi can't issue? -- these on the candidate issue? >> as it is now, having a the qualification for the public finance program, it could be in may, it could be in july or august, would have -- could also have a similar effect of being known who is in the pool and having a further commission meeting in the advent they terminate their candidacy to have the funds be surplus at that time and return them to the city with a hierarchy of payback and that would intend -- that would tend to discourage candidates who don't have a
possibility of winning. on the change to the filing deadline, it would affect not just candidates for mayor and board of supervisors, but the school board, the d.a., etc. under one version of the legislation, item one not what i believe take effect this year. it does not delay the implementation or effective date of that provision until 2013. we would not know, for example, the results of the dccc contest which would not be known until potentially after the filing deadline for certain offices. supervisor kim: thank you. >> thank you for giving me the time. >> thank you. i support both of these measures and hope you will pass them on
to the full board of supervisors. particularly if you are able to pass the major that went to the ethics commission. it is important for san francisco to continue its leadership in developing innovative campaign finance rules that help support a fundamental principle of our democracy, which is that voters should be represented by their elected representatives and it is worthwhile to remove or reduce the distractions and barriers that can prevent that from happening. unfortunately, the recent supreme court ruling has added to those distractions and barriers. it is also important to adjust the rules based on actual experience and make sure the rules are effective but not wasteful. deferring any payments of matching funds until all candidates have been nominated is a reasonable and effective way to let can't test the waters while preserving an option for
them to withdraw from the contest. raising the qualifications will still allow competition while avoiding candidates who are barely able to get a start. in addition to the review the ethics commission gave the first item, i think it is important to note their review by the comptroller found are no additional costs associated with these measures, so i hope he will approve them and help move san francisco forward. supervisor kim: thank you. >> a good afternoon. i live and work in san francisco and i would like to voice my support for both proposals before the committee today. i think both should be passed with a preference for the proposal coming from a non- partisan ethics commission.
san francisco's public financing system is a strong system and the change in both proposals would make the good system even better. these are common sense and straightforward changes that would make a number of improvements to various aspects of the system. it will bring the law into compliance with the recent supreme court ruling about triggers and increase the funds can't receive and will compensate for the supreme court changed and it's also good in its own right with the increase in expenditures. it will address these offbeat candidate issue we saw and the last mayor's race and it is worth noting budget analysts found there would be no fiscal impact to both measures, so it will have no additional costs. this is a when-when situation and there is something in it for everyone.
i encourage you to pass these proposals and i encourage the board to pass the proposal coming from the ethics commission. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am a resident of san francisco and a small business owner. i am here to speak in support of the ethics commission's proposal. the first thing to note is that it is coming from the ethics commission, a non-partisan body putting this forward as a proposal with no apparent vested interest. second, it sets a higher bar for serious candidates while still being reasonable in terms of the of mouth of money they have to raise before they are matched. third, it gives a chance for candidates who are not serious
to get out without penalty. the most important point would be that clearly, ranked choice of voting works better with fewer candidates. there's a good chance we will be keeping ranked choice of voting, so let's have at work as well as possible. i urge you to vote yes on this proposal and urge your colleagues to the same at the full board. thank you. >> i am here on behalf of california common cause. yesterday's cut we e-mail letter detailing our support of these commission measures, which i hope you have received. promoting and preserving public financing is a priority as allows candidates to focus on constituents and represents a
safeguard against a special- interest takeover. the ethics commission proposal will strengthen the public finance system and that this would be at no extra cost to taxpayers. positive changes include minimizing some of the candidates, complying with the supreme court ruling and providing more for candidates to compensate for this ruling. these measures are straightforward and respectful of public money and the ethics commission is a trustworthy and reliable source. i hope this will be a no- brainer. common cause urges you to support these proposals and reinforce this important democratic system. >> we did get your letter. thank you for that. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
we are a national political organization, dedicated to empower and asian-americans across the country. we are here to support the ethics commission proposal because it insures there will remain a level playing field in san francisco for candidates are from new and emerging communities. that is where the heart of our concern is. we strongly support ranked choice of voting. we want to make sure elections work smoothly and we should not have perverse incentives that forsake tended to stay in an election when they do not want to. we should not have a situation where the election laws are in danger of getting struck down by the supreme court, albeit for reasons we may not agree with. we are strongly in support of
the ethics commission proposals and look forward to working with you. supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> i would like to think the ethics commission for bringing this proposal forward. they did a nice job of incorporating public input and i think they listened to those of us to have been around this issue for a number of years. i was one of the original drafters of the program passed in 2000, so i would like to think you for taking to heart keeping the intent of this program. a supervisor kim for your leadership and supervisor campos as well. i support both proposals, but i hope we can do this at the board of supervisors. the fact this is coming from the ethics commission, is a non- partisan body with no vested interest in the outcome and i
think the board should think about that and defer to their judgment on these matters. you might have some differences, but it is a good proposal they have sent to you. the budget analyst has determined there is no additional cost as a result of this proposal. there is no fiscal note at all. in -- it is important for the members of the public to know what they've lost from a terrible supreme court ruling. candidates could receive more money if they can't approach the spending cap. but as a result, publicly financed candidates would not be able to receive more money. the solution to increase the spending caps by small amount is the smart way to go. and there -- dealing with the
zombie can't it problem is a big one. we talked about should we allow candidates to withdraw all and not have to pay the money back. [tone] we did not find a lot of support for that proposal. this political consultant talking to people just to get money. the way this is crafted, it is the smart way to go and i urge your support. supervisor kim: is there any public comment at this time? seeing now and, -- seeing none public comment is closed. i want to know if there was a violation of single subject matter and if that's initially to be concerned with. i believe we have already discussed this, but if you talk about that, that would be great. >> there is no single subject
problem with either proposal. supervisor kim: could you talk about why that is? >> it does amended to separate code sections -- the municipal elections code and the government conduct code. but it does so for a single purpose, to address what many people have referred to as a zombie candidate. it is all for the same purpose. >supervisor kim: thank you. i was wondering if there were any questions. i know it's not as simple as moving up a filing date, but this impacts deadlines such as signature gathering. i know we do not have the department of elections here to respond to the questions, but i believe this means all the deadlines to get moved up and i'm not sure if you can speak to
that. i do want to acknowledge mabel and her work on these items as well. i believe candidates can still qualify much earlier than the first day for disbursement of public funds. i know it is an immense amount of work to take in all the paperwork to qualify candidates. my understanding is candidates can pre qualify. >> but they cannot receive disbursement until later. >> hopefully candidates will work in advance to help get those qualifications met. do you have any understanding of how this might impact the time line for the department of
election -- i know you can submit signatures in lieu of a fee. you probably do not have familiarity with that. >> i don't want to give you incorrect information. >> i apologize we did not ask anyone from the department of elections to speak on that but it is my understanding the deadline will be moved up in conjunction with a new filing deadlines. we were careful to ensure the filing deadlines were after the primary election so people would know what the results were. if they were running for state assembly and did not win, they would still have a chance to file for another seat. supervisor farrell: just a few
questions and may be more to my colleagues -- the effective date taking place this year, is there a reason why -- is to make sure there is no perception we're trying to benefit ourselves -- supervisor kim: the impetus was the supreme court ruling. we wanted to be timely in complying with that and did not want an opportunity to get sued next year. the trigger would still be intact if we do not pass this ordinance or move the initiative to the voters in june. this was to prevent the current program to continue on its current form. the public financing program must change. the one difference in terms of the filing deadline will impact this year's candidates. i've spoken to candidates who are running this year and they
had questions about what would change for them. i do understand your concerns, but for me personally, it was a timeliness issue. supervisor farrell: there was reference made to a budget and analyst report about no cost. supervisor kim: there was a budget and legislative analyst's report. i don't know if we have copies on file, but i will ask for copies of that report. it did state there was no fiscal impact. >>supervisor farrell: this sayse don't know -- >> we just wanted
to note that the budgeting is based on the $2.75 per head that the city is required to appropriate. the expenditure for any one election could go up or down but the budget requirement does not. that is about 1.8 million. >> your letter refers to the budget appropriation we currently have as opposed to by increasing the cap, that we expect to see more or less spent in future elections. >> we did try to model that a little bit and i think it's accurate to say most of these provisions would tend to bring down the spending on any one election, but the appropriation requirement does not change.
>> i think a lot of the changes are great and long overdue. we pushed for the supreme court thing last year. the total spending cap we are raising seems a very high. that is the thing that still bothers me, the total spending amount we are talking about here. everything else is great. thank you for your hard work. i think it is overdue. if you want to pass that out today, it -- if you really want a recommendation -- and not saying i don't get there, but today i would probably vote against it. supervisor campos: i do think that it is helpful to hear from the department of elections in
terms of what the applications are for them. i think there were some good points raised and for our own benefit and for the benefit of the public, hearing directly from them, in terms of moving up deadlines, that will be useful. in terms of the effective date, item number two, that would have a different effective date. i think we can have that conversation with respect to item number one and hopefully we can find a place that eight of us can live with. to the extent there are those concerns, i think we should continue having that discussion that and i am glad the city
attorney responded to the issue. i think that was a good question. my hope is that both items move forward without a recommendation so that they go forward to the board and i think the fact we are where we are shows a great deal of progress and i want to thank the ethics commission for their work in getting us here. i know that is largely because of the work they have done. so thank you to the members of the commission and i think between now and that time this gets to the full board, we will have more information, but i would move that we move the two items forward without a recommendation.
supervisor kim: we have a motion to move for both items. i just want to say thank you to our community advocates and to our ethics commissioners, for spending many, many months on this. i think the process was really good and we are able to come up with a comprehensive program that addresses voter concerns around our public financing program and i think that strengthens the support for the program that we have and i know -- i am going to withdraw the motion -- we are withdrawing the motion to move forward. we do have an amendment that will be read into the record. >> thank you. on the subject of other election deadlines, given the
representatives of the department of elections is not here, the nomination deadline is only one of the relevant deadlines. there will be a need for further legislation to modify the other deadlines as well if this does become law. on the very minor amendment i would like to offer, on item number one, page two, line 5, there is an extra if. it currently reads if, it should read -- is a very small typo, but it would be best to address it. supervisor kim: i appreciate that you notice that.
we have a motion to move for both items with our recommendation. we will set up a meeting with the department of election prior to tuesday to get a sense of what that lines may have to be moved. i hope we can get input from your office. >> we are sending this to the committee? my -- i would move this forward and do so as a committee report. supervisor kim: and we do that without opposition. thank you to all members of the public to came out to speak on this. we appreciate your time and value your input and advocacy. at this time, we are recessing into closed session to hear for items. prior to that, we will open up to public comment if anyone would like to speak on these items. seeing none, public comments is